I agree with your overall point, but your analogy doesn’t work that well for me. The Marvel movies (particularly the biggest of them) are insanely intricate and detailed and could only be created by both a huge team of talented performers, craftspeople, and technical experts, and a (probably smaller) executive team executing on a vision.
I still agree that there’s a difference in genre between, say, Avengers: Infinity War and Goodfellas, and I don’t know how to articulate precisely the difference, but I’m certain that the difference is not that the latter requires more talent or contains more details that reward multiple viewings.
Fair, but that wasn’t the distinction I was trying to make. The point is, films can have legitimately different purposes, just as things you hang on the wall can. I hesitate to say that one of those purposes is higher than all the others, but that does seem to be the judgment the auteurs are making.
The effort that went into them can be (not always — but sometimes) orthogonal to that.
That’s the point I was trying to make: that the difference between Scorsese’s classics and Marvel blockbusters doesn’t seem to be anything remotely objective (or even subjectively quantifiable) like “level of talent required” or “amount of detail.”
I still agree that there’s a difference in genre between, say, Avengers: Infinity War and Goodfellas, and I don’t know how to articulate precisely the difference, but I’m certain that the difference is not that the latter requires more talent or contains more details that reward multiple viewings.